To overestimate the significance of the Obama-Bibi rift is to underestimate the major external/internal problem the USA with or without Obama has with Israel/AIPAC/ZIONISM/JEWS.
I contend that on top of Americans keen enough to have followed it it is NOW a majority concern of Americans as a far more serious issue than an attempt to influence the outcome of a Presidential Election.
Bibi/AIPAC has overplayed his ( not their) hand particularly with the USA Congress in a manner that not only unveiled the vulnerability of Congress to I/A/Z/J alliance but that has come to be perceived as a distinct threat to American sovereignty to most Americans including Congressmen.
.

Re: "Both men have been lavishly backed by Sheldon Adelson, a Jewish-American casino magnate who promotes Israel’s hawks and settlers."

Forever we read about Jewish influence;never do we read about oil money influencing anything or Muslim lobbies in America influencing anything. It is astonishing to me how the bloggers consistently manage to make all Arab/Muslim funding for their cause become invisible, while constantly harping only on Jewish contributions supporting their interests. Not that such a thing could amount to "bias".

". . .and thereby give Obama a chance to do whatever is needed to bring peace in the entire Middle East." Ah, you must mean as Obama's policies have done so far in Libya, Egypt, Syria, now Jordan, etcm and soon Iranian nuclear capacity, which will cause many other states there to similarly arm.

You live in a dream world. Obama's policies have resulted in less peace in the Middle East than at any time in recent memory.

Israel is now being ruled by the fundamentalist Likud and the spineless Labor party.If the Israeli voters return these two parties to office again,peace is expected to remain elusive as before.
The Israeli voters should unitedly try to bring down Netanyahu and thereby give Obama a chance to do whatever is needed to bring peace in the entire Middle East.

Did you know that the Gazan side believes that the war in Palestine is just the beginning of the Islamic takeover of Western civilization? Which side do you expect America to be on--or, for that matter, any sentient Western nation? If you think I am making this up, read (and/or listen and watch) this from the leader of Hamas:

"Today, we emphasize that our plan is not confined to the liberation of Palestine. The Islamic nation in its entirety will bring a smile to the faces of all the people in the world, and will wipe the tears from the eyes of all human beings.

Our plan is the cure for all the maladies of this Western civilization, which knows only to contain or kill, to control or destroy, to clash with people or to contain them.

"This civilization will not be able to withstand the great and glorious Islam, with its great humane platform. […]" This statement is from Hamas Leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, November 14, 2011 Special Dispatch No.4282 MEMRI.

Not surprisingly, it reinforces the statement of a leader
of the main funder of Hamas, Iran: Ahmadinejad also said, in 2005, that what happens in Palestine will determine the destiny of the battle of Islam against the West.

Only willfully blind Western nations ignore this reality, stated by Islamic leaders plainly for all to see and read, would they but open their eyes and ears.

As it is "told"? I note you never answered "by whom"--because you want to imply that there is no CAIR in the US (Council on Ameican Islamic Relations) funded largely by Saudi money.Have you considered that the Obama administration, which undoubtedy received plenty of campaign money from oil states, may be doing the bidding of the Saudis?

Neither Netanyahu, nor any other Israeli prime minister can solve the problem that Palestinians face. It just so happens that less than half of the Palestinian people live in the West Bank in Gaza. Millions are natives of Jordan, where they make the majority of the population, but ruled by a Hashemite king (think "Black September"). And nearly a million live in Syria and Lebanon - they live there for several generations, but still considered as refugees, which means that they have less rights than immigrant workers, they are not allowed to own a business or live outside of the designated refugee camps (think "apartheid").
"Two-state solution" is a pet-project of Western politicians (American and European alike), intended to make life easier for the oil-rich Arab states by shifting all the responsibility for solving the Palestinian problem onto Israel.

I wonder how the Palestinians ended up in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria etc. in the first place? Could it have been being chased there by armed force? As I recall the original partition plan for Palestine that the Jewish Agency agreed to (although not the terrorist groupings of the Irgun and the Stern Gang)was a Two-state solution.

Indeed, the original UN plan was agreed to by a majority of Jews and rejected by a majority of Arabs including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. Some Arabs supported the plan and paid the price (Fakhri Nashashibi and Ragheb Bey Nashashibi). The Jews declared a state and the Arabs attacked trying to "drive the Jews into the sea." The Arabs lost the war and have been licking their wounds ever since. I pity the individual Palestinians who have had to live in horrid conditions for so long, but it is a failure of their leadership, not Israel, that is the root cause of their strife.

Jordan was the part of the original British mandate, intended for creating the two states, and had its share of the Palestinian population, which still lives there.

In many countries (particularly in the US) population can trace their roots to other countries. This, for example, the case with the descendants of the Palestinians who moved moved to US and Europe. It is also the case with more than a million of Jewish refugees who escaped to Israel from various Middle Eastern countries.

So whatever injustices might have been done towards the grandparents of the Palestinians, it does not justify their current mistreatment by the Arab states. What you are effectively suggesting is exiling people from the places where they were born and grew up, thus effectively making them refugees once again.

80% of Palestians got Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, etc. by being born there. According the UNHCR, the UN committee on refuees, refugee status is not legally transferable to second or even tenth generation. However, due to world-wide anti-semitism, a special cases was made for Palestians. I don't know why Greeks thrown out of Turkey in the 60s or from Egypt in 50s don't get a a living stipend for life?

As for the Stern Gang/Irgun. You conviently forget the massive terror operations by the Palestinians in 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, until today. They practically invented this form of warfare in the modern era, and have killed innumberable Jewish civillians than the Stern Gang ever did.

"Two-state solution" is a pet-project of Western politicians (American and European alike), intended to make life easier for the oil-rich Arab states by shifting all the responsibility for solving the Palestinian problem onto Israel." - your comment. The distance between Palestine and the "oil rich states" is roughly the same as the distance between Norway and Greece. So if there is poverty in Greece, we should move everybody to oil-rich Norway?? Your sense of history (and geography) is absurd. People who actually lived in Palestine want to return to their homes, lands and villages - nothing more. They want to exercise their "right of return" to their homes. It is a natural urge and a legal right.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I pointed out that the Palestinian self-determination cannot be achieved within the borders of the West Bank and Gaza alone: a true politically and economically viable Palestinian state would have to include parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
This exposes the main issue: supporting Palestinians is not the same as being against Israel. However, the oil-rich Arab states would like to keep the focus on Israel, to keep in check their own ethnic and sectarian conflicts. Many in the West help them.
In addition, claiming that the responsibility lies with Israel alone gives a cover to those, who pretend to be pro-Palestinian, while in fact merely being antisemitic.

That still leaves four million Palestinians under Israeli occupation and who are not going anywhere. If you don't think they should get a state in the land they live on, then are you suggested that they should be granted Israeli citizenship? I don't see any other option.

As I explained above, I support the creation of a true Palestinian state on the territories populated by the Palestinians, which include the West Bank, Gaza, most of Jordan, Southern Lebanon and part of Syria. I also think that the territories populated by Jews should be included in Israel - this uncludes large settlement blocks in the West Bank.

Creating a bi-national state would be a good idea, if we had any reasons to believe that the two nations can peacefully coexist. As it stands now, it is not a realistic solution.

You're not talking about re-unification, but about the dismemberment of three sovereign states to create a fourth one. I don't see any reason why the ruling regimes nor the population of those states and the Palestinians themselves, would accept such a bizarre solution. The only thing inevitable about it is that it will be laughed at.

Besides, regardless of what Palestinians do with the West Bank, it would still require Israel withdrawing from East Jerusalem, Hebron and the Jordan Valley. I don't see that happening.

Re: "The Arabs lost the war and have been licking their wounds ever since." Licking their wounds? Nonsense; they have been waging war after losing war, and losing more and more land, and creating more and more Arabs who are now living in occupied territory, a situation they created by waging those wars and losing. Of course they blame Israel. What else is new?

@Froy
You deny the Palestinian people the right of self-determination.
You also apply double standards when discussing Palestinians under Israeli control and those in Lebanon/Syria/Jordan, even though the latter are equally mistreated.
From which areas Israel will withdraw can be decided only in future negotiations. I cannot judge what expertise you have to be so sure about what can and cannot be done.

The state of Palestine has to be created within the territories envisaged in Resolution 181. Subsequent to disputes in 1947, under Resolution 186, the UN appointed a mediator, Folke Bernadotte. His final proposals were (on September 16, 1948):

"1. Peace must return to Palestine and every feasible measure should be taken to ensure that hostilities will not be resumed and that harmonious relations between Arab and Jew will ultimately be restored.
2 A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
3. The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.
4. Adherence to the principle of geographical homogeneity and integration, which should be the major objective of the boundary arrangements, should apply equally to Arab and Jewish territories, whose frontiers should not therefore, be rigidly controlled by the territorial arrangements envisaged in the resolution of 29 November.
5. The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return.
6. The City of Jerusalem, because of its religious and international significance and the complexity of interests involved, should be accorded special and separate treatment.
7. International responsibility should be expressed where desirable and necessary in the form of international guarantees, as a means of allaying existing fears, and particularly with regard to boundaries and human rights.

8. The existing indefinite truce should be superseded by a formal peace, or at the minimum, an armistice.
9. The frontiers between the Arab and Jewish territories, in the absence of agreement between Arabs and Jews, should be established by the United Nations.
10. The Negev should be defined as Arab territory.
11. The frontier should run from Faluja north northeast to Ramleh and Lydda (both of which places would be in Arab territory).
12. Galilee should be defined as Jewish territory.
13. Haifa should be declared a free port, and Lydda airport should be declared a free airport.
14. The City of Jerusalem, which should be understood as covering the area defined in the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November, should be treated separately and should be placed under effective United Nations control with maximum feasible local autonomy for its Arab and Jewish communities with full safeguards for the protection of the Holy Places and sites and free access to them and for religious freedom.
15. The United Nations should establish a Palestine conciliation commission.
16. The right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date should be affirmed by the United Nations, and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return, should be supervised and assisted by the United Nations conciliation commission."

On the very next day (September 17, 1948), he "was assassinated in Jerusalem by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. The decision to assassinate him had been taken by Natan Yellin-Mor, Yisrael Eldad and Yitzhak Shamir, who was later to become Prime Minister of Israel."

With respect to Palestinian people in other countries, they could come back to Palestine (i.e., the right of return) or stay where they are.

In response to your last point. One can easily be very secular (i.e., pro-Palestinian, pro-Christian and pro-Jewish) and yet despise the racist apartheid policies of the state of Israel. Antisemitism is the wrong word - because the people of Palestine are as Semitic as the Jews. We also keep forgetting that Jesus Christ was a Palestinian gentleman - like Abraham. The oil-rich states have no role in this issue. Neither does "the West" have a long-term role. The Jews had a "fatal dispute" with the Europeans, ran away from Europe and decided to live in Asia - by hook or by crook. Now, in order to survive in Asia in the long-term, the Jews will have to make friends in Asia. Washington cannot be "the cornerstone" of your foreign policy for ever. The time will come (probably quite soon) when the interests of the USA and Israel will be totally different. What then?? The Jews will run back to Europe?? The 30-40 century old history of running from country will keep repeating itself!!! For ever?? I think people in Israel (particularly the the younger generation) should really ponder why "the chosen people" have for the past 30-40 centuries become history's "most despised people".

Many things have changed since 1948. Neither UN nor the Palestinians want to go back to that obviously unworkable resolution. Moderate Palestinians are content with 1949 ceasfire lines (so called "1967 borders"), while more extreme are still contemplating a genocide.

You may use other word than "antisemitism", but your double standards show that you are driven by the hatred towards everything Jewish/Israeli rather than by a concern for human rights.

The moderate Palestinians have a reasonable point of view, as you have said in your comments. I agree with you. Why is their point of view not accepted by Israel??

I have no double standards. I am agnostic and and a humanist. The Jews were inflicted horrible suffering in all of Europe for the past 15 centuries, or more. My issue is: why are the Jews doing exactly the same things to the people of Palestine??

Firstly, because not all Palestinians are moderate, whereas the moderate ones do not have authority to implement the peace agreement. Secondly, 1949 ceasefire line is just a ceasefire line - the final border has to be negotiated to take account for Israel's security and the rights of the Jews already living in the West Bank. Thirdly, Israel offered on several occasions peace agreements that Palestinians refused to accept. Fourthly, right now the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate.

I explained why I think that you have double standards. Humanists are concerned with human rights everywhere - not only those of the Palestinians, and not only when they are abused by Israel. Israel is just the easiest target, because it is a democracy which is concerned about human rights and about what people think of it.

Finally your talk about agnosticism, being secular etc. sounds like gibberish. Religion has very little to do with this conflict.

The key issues are very different from the ones that you describe. Israel is the total opposite of a country that can abide by secular, human values and modern principles of justice:

1. It is a theocratic state. Israel is a totally theocratic state. The Zionist movement was based entirely on quotations from books written 3,000 years ago - supposedly by God!!! "According to the Book of Genesis, the land was promised by God to the descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac and to the Israelites, descendants of Jacob, Abraham's grandson. A literal reading of the text suggests that the land promise is (or was at one time) one of the Biblical covenants between God and the Israelites." Have you ever heard such nonsense in your life?? Has any nation ever in modern history ever claimed title to land based on an ancient textbook, the author of which is a fictional character?? If you do not like theocratic countries, then Israel is the most theocratic country in the world, with apartheid formally written into their laws!!! Have you ever thought about this issue?? Their laws and day-to-day political discussions are based on ancient folklore and the OT which is very racist - non-Jews are practically (and legally, in some cases) considered inferior to the Jews (i.e., God's chosen people). Theocratic racism has led to apartheid being ingrained in their land laws.
2. It practices apartheid. "In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated that "elements of the Israeli occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law" and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice. In 2009 South Africa's statutory research agency the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) published a report stating that "the State of Israel exercises control in the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid."[45] The report was written by a team of international law experts and scholars and does not represent an official position of the HSRC. In 2010 United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine Richard A. Falk reported that criminal apartheid features of the Israeli occupation had been entrenched in the three years since the report of his predecessor, John Dugard. In March 2011, Falk said, "The continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem combined with the forcible eviction of long-residing Palestinians is creating an intolerable situation ... [and] can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing."

On the other issues, I will get back to you in a few hours. There are several issues that you have raised need a more detailed response.

I think this debate has become meaningless: you are just repeating the well-known antisemitic/anti-Zionist/anti-Israel talking points, and I respond by quoting the facts. You don't really need me for this - simply expand your range of reading beyond the obviously biased sources. Good luck.

Good morning. This is in continuation of my previous unfinished comments. Some of the other issues that are totally against secular and humanist principles are:

3. The "occupation". I always thought that this was merely Arab (anti-Israel) propaganda till I made a few business trips to your country and decided to travel to towns in the West Bank as a tourist. I saw many of the issues with my own eyes - and also experienced racism - because I am not white - I am Asian. Here is what an Israel journalist (Noam Sheizaf) has to say about this issue:

"The Palestinians are not the only people in the world who lack an independent state. Yet there is one fundamental difference between the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and, let’s say, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, not to mention the situation of the Basques in Spain or the Kurds in Turkey (both examples are often cited as comparisons by the Israeli right). In all of those cases, the “occupying” country annexed the territory at hand and turned the people living in it – sometimes against their will – into its citizens. Israel never did that. It let the army run the occupied territory. The Israeli occupation is also different from the American occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, because Israel has a claim to the land it conquered, because it is using the natural resources of this land, and because it moves the Jewish population into the occupied territory."

"The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is therefore a unique phenomenon. Between one-quarter and one half of the population under Israeli control (the exact number depends on how you estimate of the size of Palestinian population, and whether you count Gaza or not) does not enjoy the most basic of civil rights or any political representation within the regime that controls it. Israel is a decent democracy for its Jewish citizens. For Palestinians, it’s a brutal dictatorship."

"The life of every Palestinian in the West Bank is at the mercy of any soldier he or she meets. We are talking millions of people, who haven’t got the most basic protections that civilians everywhere enjoy. All Palestinians are tried by military tribunals, where the prosecution and the judges wear the same uniform – that of the IDF. Palestinians are not allowed to travel outside the West Bank without an army permit. They are subject to long lines at checkpoints and to arbitrary searches whenever they meet a soldier. Soldiers enter Palestinian homes at any time – day or night – without a warrant. When a Palestinian is wronged by a soldier, there is little point in filing a complaint, as the army doesn’t have the checks and balances a civilian authority has. Palestinians are not just Israelis with lesser rights; they are more like the prisoners of Israelis. I know this, because I have seen the occupation in action and I have been directly involved in it."

"And the worst thought of all: A Palestinian man my age has not been free for a single day in his life."

"Contrary to popular belief, there was never a real argument in Israel over the settlements, only over the location, the nature and the size of them. In the eyes of the consensus, colonizing East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza was fair game. The result: there are over half a million Jews east of the Green Line today."

"Israel’s democratic institutions took part in the decision. At some point in the late 70s, Israel decided that all the state land in the Territories is available for it to use. Government offices facilitated construction of homes for Jews in the West Bank, the Supreme Court approved confiscation of land and the widespread use of Palestinian natural resources – at times, it even approved confiscating privately owned land – and the Knesset voted overwhelmingly in support on the rare occasions such matters even reached the Knesset."

"Today Israel builds roads, even new neighborhoods, commercial spaces and culture centers in the West Bank, while pushing the Palestinian population from those areas to the crowded cities and villages (a good graphic of the land allocation can be found here). Hundreds of “illegal” Palestinian homes are being destroyed every year, and no permits for new ones are given. This systematic displacement and confiscation has been taking place for almost half a century. The problem with the settlements is not the settlers. It’s the state."

The above is what a "moderate" Israeli has experienced and written about. Internationally a lot has been written about this as well - for more details, read "RULING PALESTINE:
A HISTORY OF THE LEGALLY SANCTIONED JEWISH-ISRAELI SEIZURE OF LAND AND HOUSING IN PALESTINE". It is written by an European organization, located in Switzerland - links are given below:

"the Zionist movement was from the very beginning distinctly non-religious in its nature and goals" - your comment. Zionism was a secular movement!!! "Return to Zion" - "the term was first coined after the destruction of the Second Temple (mentioned in the Song of Degrees, it was attributed to the event of the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile to the Land of Israel after the destruction of the First Temple, following the decree of Cyrus the Great." Interestingly, a Persian emperor helped the Jews to come back an build the second temple. The temple stood for 420 years, till it was destroyed by the Romans.
Zionism as a secular movement??? "Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel. Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity and opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel."

I cannot understand how you claim that Zionism was a non-religious movement. Just read the statements of all the earlier leaders of this movement and Israel.

"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." - T. Herzl, 1985.

"...the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim--to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants." Y. Weitz, 1937.

"There is no justice, no law, and no God in heaven, only a single law which decides and supersedes all---- [Jewish] settlement [of the land]." Z. Jabotinsky, 1926.

"The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them." He later added, "Hitler--- as odious as he is to us---has given this idea a good name in the world." Z. Jabotinsky, 1940.

"This is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it should prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement .... the state, however, must enforce order and security and it will do this not by mobilizing and preaching 'sermons on the mount' but by the machine-guns, which we will need." D. Ben-Gurion, 1938.

"this is why we formulated our demand not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state". D. Ben-Gurion, 1942.

"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." D. Ben-Gurion, 1946.

"[Land is acquired] by force --- that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land form its owner; . . . by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. . . [The Zionist movement was limited to the third choice] until at some point we become rulers." M. Ussishkin, 1904.

"By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American." C. Weizmann, 1919.

"I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages." A. Ruppin, 1931.

There are hundreds of similar thoughts and quotations from the "founding fathers" of Zionism. I have a few very fundamental question: Did you go to school and university in Israel?? Have you traveled extensively outside Israel?? Do you watch any Arab/Asian TV channels?? I just wanted to see how you came to the conclusion that "the Zionist movement was from the very beginning distinctly non-religious in its nature and goals."??

So your claim that Zionism is not a secular movement is based on the use of the word "Zion"? And any movement for national independence, according to you, and any search of national identity is religious? None of the quotes that you provided has any more reference to religion than that.

Please read the whole post - not just 1 sentence. The "return to Zion" theme is also echoed in the words of the national anthem. The quotes are certainly not secular - nor are they humanist - nor do they symbolize peaceful co-existence. Your logic is absurd and reflects a lack of deductive reasoning.
Your second point is about "any movement for national independence". I think we have discussed this issue earlier as well. Independence movements can be religious (e.g., South Sudan) or ethnic/linguistic (e.g., Scotland). However, all 52 "independence movements" in the world have 1 major common feature - i.e., all of these movements seek autonomy on the territory that they are already living in. Israel is a religious independence movement based on the ethnic cleaning and total eviction of the existing inhabitants of Palestine. Can you see the difference???
Secularism has several key ingredients. For the sake of being brief, I will mention only 2 at the moment:
1. Equality in terms of land rights and citizenship. Details will/can be provided tomorrow. However, I have in my earlier comments, already provided you all the key facts about this issue. For example, a Jewish family living in rural Russia for 4 centuries (i.e., 10-12 generations) can come to Israel and get citizenship and buy a farm. However, a Palestinian person whose father had a farm in say Jaffa cannot either get citizenship nor can he buy a farm. Can you explain how this fits into any know definition of secularism??? Please send the definition from an English dictionary, and from the OT.
2. Equality in terms of voting rights. This does not exist as well. Here is what the Israeli press has to say about this matter:
"Elections to the Israeli Knesset will be held a little less than three months from now, on January 22. The parameters that determine political participation in Israel break down according to ethnic and geographic lines: in the West Bank, for example, Jews can vote while their Palestinian neighbors – regardless of whether they live in “Palestinian” Area A or in “Israeli” Area C – don’t vote. Things are more complicated in Jerusalem."
"7,659,000 people living in Israeli territory have voting rights, while 2,128,115 people have no voting rights. Altogether, one in every 4.5 people is denied political representation; this one person is almost always Palestinian."
How does this make Israel fully democratic?? And the concept of democracy and secularism in Israel is a bit like calling a whale as a bird and referring to a crow as a reptile!!! Do you have comprehension problems with the English language?? Or do you suffer from dyslexia?? The good news is that medical science has now found a cure for this illness.

As you remember, I offered to end this debate a few days ago, since most of what you say are typical anti-Israel talking points. I have heard all of them previously on many occasions, and most of them are easily debunked by pointing out well-known facts. And you can easily get knowledge of these facts by turning to the mainstream sources.
Now it came down to insults - you don't really expect me to continue, do you?

My apologies for hurting your feelings. It was not intentional. I found it very difficult to comprehend why commonly and easily defined terms like secular, self-determination, democracy, etc. were being distorted by you. It seemed to be international. If I am wrong, please clarify. On my part I have clearly stated that I am agnostic - i.e., I have a problem with all religions, particularly the 3 Abrahamic faiths. They have been (and are) one of the main reasons for major conflicts in Asia and Europe - for centuries. In the 21st century, it is very surprising (and disturbing) that domestic (and foreign) policies can be based on story books written several centuries ago. It is also surprising (and disturbing) that God (if he does exist) choose to give different messages to 3 different prophets who were located a few hundred miles from each other. The most surprising (and disturbing) fact is that God is a witness (and a party) to the turmoil that he has created. Is it not time for God to issue a clarification???

It never ceases to amaze me that the contributions to the campaigns by foreign interests is never mentioned, as they CAIR lobby in Washington, funded by the Saudis, is never mentioned. The only influence ever mentioned is Jewish money, as if Arab oil money were non-existant. In fact, it is oil and the need of all of Europe for oil, that determines which side Europe supports in this battle between Islam and the Infidel; Europe is now so dependent upon Russia for oil that it sides with the Islamists. It will live to regret the choice.

My comment was clear and was directed towards this article and what was mentioned in it.

However, I must say that your comment on Oil, Europe, Russia, Arab money (by the way, there are more than 20 Arab countries and only a few have oil), Infidels and Islamists didn't make sense. Especially, the fact that you said that Europe supports the Islamists because of its dependency on Russian energy, although there is currently huge opposition and sometimes fight in the Arab world itself against the Islamists makes your comment quite irrational, non-realistic, unlinked by any means and as a result, FLAWED.

Anyways, I respect your point of view and appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

Iran's "perceived" nuclear threat. The Iranian bases are being built, the Iranian leadership (not just the Iranian President) call for the extermination of Israel - and the Economist magazine talks of a "perceived" threat.

The real "bad bet" the Israel Prime Minster made was to trust the United States and not attack the Iranian nuclear bases. Of course the peace loving Economist magazine gives the Prime Minister no credit for not attacking - on the contrary you remain committed to driving him from office as part of your wider agenda.

As for the "peace process", as Economist magazine people know perfectly well - "peace" to an Islamist means "submission to Allah". Yet the Economist writes as if some other sort of peace was seriously off offer. The only logical conclusion is that like George Soros (and the others who fund "liberal" groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel - in the name of "peace") and the other "international community", "world governance" and "responsibility to protect" types, the agenda of the Economist magazine is the destruction of Israel. Because, like the majority of the British establishment since the 1920s (Winston Churchill and other pro Jewish figures were always a minority), you believe that an anti Jewish policy will create peace between the West and Islam - you are mistaken, it will not. All Jews could be exterminated tomorrow and Islam and the West would still be in conflict.

As for those Americans who demand that Israel should "stand on its own feet" - well I am sitting in Israel right now, and everyone I meet is happy to do just that. And for those modern Herbert Samuels (the Jewish British official who broke the promise of a National Home for the Jewish people in the Holy Land, whilst doing nothing about Arab immigration, thus leaving millions of Jews to be murdered in Europe).

Well Herbert Samuel appointed an Islamist murderer to be Grand Mufti (against the wishes of moderate Muslims) - the alliance of this Grand Mufti with such people as a Adolf Hitler was inevitable, but Jews survived both. And Israel will survive "J Street" and all the other Obama supporters who have sold out in return for Soros money. You, and the Economist magazine, can do your worse - Israel will still exist long after you are gone.

Basically you are saying that anyone who criticizes Israeli policy is a racist who wants the destruction of Israel. Thanks for your input. Many of us here in the U.S. are waiting for the day Washington gives you the boot and makes you fend for yourself instead of leeching off my tax dollar.

So Obama supporters have "sold out"... this mentality you have is exactly the problem. It is you who is racist who thinks some sky daddy made you superior to the rest of us. You clearly demonstrate that you want this country to put Israel above its own self-interest. Even the Iranians have never threatened to kill Israelis in particularly - their comments have been aimed at your government.

I can't stand the propaganda you just posted, and I'm on the other side of the world. No wonder Iran doesn't like you. They have to live right next to you.

The entire world right now has more or less a negative view of Israel. Obviously, the problem is with your policy and your apartheid state. Grow up and fix your character. The liberals are winning in America, and as we progress and get more and more educated, the evangelicals are just going to get old and die out. Learn to fight your own battles because you will have to sooner or later.

I have never taken a cent from the American taxpayer - not even when I was working for the United States.

Nor am I an Israeli. I am British.

As for "critizes Israeli policy" - if you had bothered to read my post you would see I attacked Israeli policy myself. Specifically the failure to attack the Iranian nuclear bases whilst they are still not operational. The judgement of the Israeil Prime Minister to trust in the United States i.e. NOT to "fight your own battles" may prove fatal.

As for you comments that I am "racist" and that Israel is an "apartheid state" - I see no reason to take moral lectures from a coward who will not even type under his own name. So much for "character" - something you clearly lack.

However, you are quite correct that the socialists (who you dishonestly call "liberals") are winning in the United States. The "eduction" speak of (which is basically Frankfurt School propaganda) has seen to that.

This is why the United States will soon be utterly bankrupt (as will the rest of the West - including Britain).

If it was just you (and your fellow "liberals") unable to find a job and begging in the street it would not be a problem (after all that is exactly what you deserve) - but the majority of human beings who will suffer are innocent.

Paul Marks - you seem to inhabit some paranoid construct where you believe that liberals hanker for the destuction of Israel - possibly you need some rest and relaxation and more importantly perspective in order to realise that loving peace is not a bad place to start.

After this you may wish to ponder that you would have no country without the support of the rest of the world and it was the palestinians who suffered for this aim. Israel is awash with money and weapons thanks to the charity of other countries and yet you seem to think that by accepting this for decades you are now free to determine your own future. How naive. The dog wags the tail not vice versa. And stop entertaining ideas that by not committing an international crime your government deserves credit. Iran likes to rattle a few cages with its feisty rhetoric, I am sure with your 'character' you can deal with it

I am British not Israeli (although I visit the land - indeed I am just back from Israel).

Moves such as the violent removal of Jewish settlers in Gaza by the IDF (i.e. a mostly Jewish force, the IDF does have some Christian and Muslim soldiers but it is mostly Jewish, using vilence against Jews) are "rewarded" by thousands of rockets being fired from now "Jew free" Gaza into Israel.

The Islmamists do not want peace whatever the Israeli does. They never did want peace - Jewish communities were attacked and wiped out even back in the First World War, and the Grand Mufti (appointed back the 1920s - by a, Jewish, British official desperate to try and make friends with the Islamists, yes Herbert Samuel was that stupid) was an ally of Adolf Hitler and wished Jews to be exterminated not just in the Holy Land but everywhere (he even visited the Death Camps).

Jews were the largest ethnic group in Jerusalem even as far back as 1890. And those who savagely limited Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s (thus leading to millions of Jews dying in the gas chambers) did nothing to prevent Arab immigration to the British Mandate - or did you not know that most (although far from all) "Palestinians" were immigrants themselves?

And the vast majority of what was the British Mandate is under Muslim rule - it called "Jordan" (the old Trans Jordan). You will not find many Jews there. Most of "Palestine" is under Muslim rule.

Many Muslim Arabs also live in Israel (and they worship freely and have the vote) - contrary to what you have been taught it was the Muslim Arab leaders (not the "evil Jews") who called opon the Arabs to leave. Crimes were committed by Jews against Arabs - but vastly greater crimes were committed against Jews by Muslims (in the Holy Land and all over the Middle East).

There are more Muslim Arabs in Israel (as full citizens) than there are Jews left in the entire Middle East outside Israel.

You say that Israel should not get government aid.

I AGREE with you - and have often said so.

Nor should the Muslim Arabs in Gaza (or anywhere else) get government aid - from the United Nations or any other taxpayer funded body.

When various Arab nations expelled their Jewish populations (and there were mass killings and rapes even in the 19th century - long before the state of Israel existed) these Jews (who are also Arab by "race") were intergrated into Israel.

The Arabs who left Israel in 1948 (who were TOLD to leave Israel by the various Muslim leaders) have been left to rot in camps (now more like concrete suburbs) all over the Middle East.

The oil rich Arabs left their own "brothers and sisters" to rot - as a POLITICAL STATEMENT, they did not want them to intergrate into the various Arab nations.

Each day they are told that they will return and exterminate the Jews. And even the "moderate" "Palestinian Authority" that runs the "West Bank" (a lot of which is closer to the sea than it is to the Jordan river) teaches in its schools and broadcasts on its Arabic television that the Jews should be driven into the sea.

"None of my business" - fair enough Mr Jones, then stay out of it. You have no friends or relatives in the area - it is none of your affair.

No taxpayer money - for either side.

P.S. stop calling American socialists "liberals". We both know that American "liberals" are not exactly fans of Grover Cleveland or Gladstone - they are far more likely to be fans of college "critical theory" and other developments of the Frankfurt School.

Re: "Israel is an aparthheid state". In fact, Israel's CITIZENRY is 20 percent Arab, some of whom sit in Parliament, while the Arab states surroundign Israel, and often levelling the aparthied charge, are themselves apartheid. After the Israeli War of Independence, these states expelled as many Jews as there were "Palestinian" refugees. Today Egypt is slaughtering Coptic Christians. You cannot even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia.

Indeed there are more Arabs, as full citizens, in Israel than there are Jews left in the entire Middle East outside Israel.

The Islamists have also made it very clear that they intend to crush Christians all over the Middle East - i.e. destroy the Christian population in the area where the Christian religion was born.

Those Americans who are saying "what is any of this to do with me?" forget that Islamists have GLOBEL desires. There is most likely a branch of CAIR (or some other Muslim Brotherhood front) not far from where the "it is nothing to do with me" person lives.

Only a few years ago people in Europe would have laughed at the idea that there could ever be an Islamic threat in modern times "that ended at Vienna in 1683" was the mocking response. But most people are not laughing now, the Islamist threat is not some thing from the past - it is very much the present and the future.

"Why should I care about Europe" comes the American isolationist response - again the threat is much closer to you than you believe. For example, what are your own children being taught about Islam at school? Are they being taught it is a "religion of peace" and other such nonsense?

Christianity was driven out of the government schools many decades ago, why is pro Islam stuff being taught? Taught in the name of "tolerance" and "cultural studies" and "criticial theory" and.......

And to the claim "we just want the young people to read all points of view" how many works by Robert Spencer (or other writers opposed to Islam) are on the reading lists?

A nice idea. The US increases pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program and Netanyahu makes sincere efforts to find a just deal on a two state solution. A couple of problems. Many of Netanyahu’s allies, and maybe Netanyahu himself, have serious religious problems with giving up territory. In addition, many of Netanyahu’s allies, and Netanyahu himself, just do not want to give up territory and want the Palestinians to conveniently disappear from Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Netanyahu has already done an excellent job of making Palestinians, as people, invisible to most Israelis. In the meantime, he has focused Israelis’ attention on Iran. What Peace Movement?
For a variety of reasons the Palestinians lack the ability / resources / organization / cohesiveness / will to really focus on a deal with Israel. And, by the way, Hamas has some very dangerous people in its leadership who would lose power if a deal was struck with Israel. Let us not forget Hezbollah. Even if Iran agreed a deal on nuclear weapons, there is no reason to think Hezbollah would stop attacking Israel. After all, hating Israel is pretty much Hezbollah’s raison d’etre.

1. It is insane to give up territory. "If you keep doign what what you have been doing" you may have heard, "you keep getting what you have been getting." The Israelis gave up Gaza. They got suicide bombers and missiles. You think they should do that again?

They gave up the Sinai. Now Mubarak is gone, the Brotherhood is in, and the value of the treaty is exactly zero. Egypt has the territory; Israel has a huge problem on its border.

2. The leader of Hamas has stated repeatedly that he will give up not one inch to Israel: "not one inch". Special Dispatches - No. 3080
Hamas Leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar: Our Plan For This Stage Is To Establish A Palestinian State Without Recognizing Israel and Without Giving Up The Right Of Return; Our Ultimate Plan Is To Have Palestine In Its Entirety
URL: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4429.htm - July 06, 2010

If you mean the ultra orthodox should not be given welfare and should have to work for a living, then I agree with you.

Of course the way the ultra orthodox dress and act (impractical clothing and so on) and their lack of any military training (they dodge military service in the IDF) means that "war" is not going to happen - I supsect that if they tried to violently resist the end of their welfare benefits, they would trip over their own beards.

There is, of course, a vast difference between the Orthodox and the various groups of "ultra orthodox".

Orthodox Jews do have a birthrate that maintains or expands the population (surely a good thing not a bad thing), but they work for a living and they risk their lives in the IDF.

It would be ironic wouldn't it? If they did resort to armed conflict (but more realistically domestic turmoil -- they are already making life miserable for non orthodox) that would make IDF dodging a tad illogical.

At some point, being the majority, they will have no one to purloin subsidy from and no one else to enter the military.

Remember - vast difference between the orthodox, who work and serve, and the ultra orthodox - who do not.

Well some of the the ultra orthodox do not work and serve in the IDF - you seem there are various factions and......

It all gets complicated - Paul's head hurts.

Israel is becomming a more religious country - socialism having failed (decades ago) people are looking for a substitute for "The God That Failed" and God Himself looks like a good substitute.

But it is not just the Jews who are tending to become more religous (although Orthodox - rather than ultra Orthodox).

Muslims are getting more religious - hence the rise of Hamas and other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

Christians?

There are few Christians left - Christian Arab towns are now Muslim Arab towns.

The Islamists pretend tolerance - and push the Christian Arabs out(although they trot a few in front of the television cameras now and then).

Jews now regard Christians as allies - but have some misconceptions about Christians.

For example, "I have a Christian comming to stay, I must get some pork for him to eat" seems to a be a common thought.

Very tolerant - and well meant.

But we do eat other things.....

More interestingly there is an increasing interest in the past - the good side of the British Mandate period.

The British period is, quite rightly, traditionally held to be horrific - because of the denial of entry of millions of Jews (breaking the British promise of a National Home) which lead to the horrible deaths of these people. Almost needless to say there was no real effort to limit Arab immigration in the 1920s and 1930s (and there was a vast amount of that).

However, the buildings were nicer in the British period - a lot of the post World War II stuff is just concrete and glass boxes (same as everywhere - the post World War II building styles were a failure, we were told we would grow to love Modernism, but most people simply did not).

And many important enterprises were created - such as the power and light company (whose old H.Q. I visited in Hafia) and the Dead Sea sulpher company and .......

It was not the British who took over these Jewish business enterprises - and it was not even the forces of Islam that destroyed most of them.

It was Jewish Labour governments - they used regulations to bankrupt companies they did not like, and then nationalized them.

There has been strong move against these state owned enterprises in recent years - although (as everywhere) the return to private ownership has not been clean (there has been cronyism).

The cooperative and communes continue to decline - because they simply do not tend to work very well.

It it was not for the terrible dispute with Islam (for which I have no solution), Israel would mostly likely develop into a Jewish version of Texas.

Hafia would be sort of like Austin (liberal Texas - but still Texas) and other parts more religious style Texas.

The difference would be - more coast in relation to land area than Texas.

Like California - but more so. In no part of Israel is one more than a couple of hours from the sea.

Even in Britain that simply is not so - and for people who love the sea (as I do) that is important.

I'll be at pains to say that I don't care if you're Orthodox or not, but if you're a member of a nation, you work for it and should be willing to fight and die for it, especially if other able bodied members are expected to undergo national service. I can best sum this up as, "No Mollycoddlers".

I can't really say people are more religious -- tribal yes and the cultural identifiers of religious affiliation make for easy markers of tribe. This is perhaps another trend, where one über ideology doesn't seem to hold, so people gravitate to what seems to offer security. The next generation will, perhaps, chafe at the swing and go the other way.

Religion is different in Israel - walking about one finds things, or encounters names.

Even many children from atheist households become religous (that does not tend to happen in Europe or the United States) although Judaism is inwardly looking faith. Unlike both Christianity and Islam Judaism rarely thinks in terms of conversions (indeed Orthodox Jews go out of their way to make it difficult to convert "keep out of our club"?)

As a libertarian I oppose conscription - but ultra orthodox men doing nothing but study the Torah and living off the state is just plain weird.

On the military question - as I say I oppose conscription, but there is a moral obligation to serve (at least I think so).

Especially in a country were an enemy thrust could cut the place in two in a couple of hours.

Israel can not afford to lose battles.

There is no time to train people - they all have to know what they need to do in advance.

"Shunning" might be a libertarian alternative to conscription - not talking to people (or interacting with them) who refuse to serve.

Shunning might be a problem if the group in question wants to isolate themselves from you, or tell you what to do because they don't approve of what you are doing, which seems to be the largest grievance of non ultras in Israel. It will all come down to numbers and attitudes.

I understand that to not serve in the IDF has a large number of economic consequences already. For the most part, all able bodied people must learn to fight and patrol for country, whether one agrees to combat positions is a separate issue.

In terms of the US, I take the attitude that all civilians should have to do a term of national service. The simple reason is there is a large problem when the bulk of the population doesn't have to really deal with the consequence of war, especially in the well to do classes. Make em all do boot camp, KP and guard duty, and hump gear thru mud ditches for a few months with a broad mixture of the rest of the population.

An isolated pacifist community of Jews should be allowed - although I do not think the Islamists would spare their lives (and more than the Romans spared the lives of the Essenes).

As for the idea that American leaders should not decide on war unless they have had experience - that sounds a bit "Starship Troopers" to me (although that does automatically mean that your idea is a bad one - it is not a bad book). Sadly people tend to demand this - and then ignore their own demand.

Much in the way that the media denounced Bush "what do you know of war - you just spent some time flying jets in Texas" - but then igored the fact that John McCain knew more of the horror of war than most people alive (having spent years being tortured by the Communists in North Vietnam) and supported Barack Obama (a man whose entire life has been one of comfort, expensive private school, then string pulling to get him into Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law because his grades were too poor to get in on merit) who has no military experience whatever.

If people were even handed - and demanded that both parties candidates have experience of the horrors of war, I could understand it. But it is only one side (the Republicans) who get attacked on this by the media.

Still you have a point - I must admit that I felt uncomfortable with Mitt Romney having spent the years of the Vietnam war in France. France in the mid to late 1960s was a wonderful place (although that insane blow up in Paris in 1968 showed there was intellectual decay behind the curtain), but the son of Governor George Romney should have shown responsbility to his country when his country was at war.

There can be no peace negotiations if the Palestinians believe that in a two-state solution they have the right to return to the Israeli part. This has almost 95% support of Israel Jews. If Mahmoud Abbas accepts this, everyting else is up for negotiations -including Jerusalem. Unfortunately he is already back tracking on what he has said because of the huge criticism and calls that he is a traitor; which in the Arab World is tantamount to the death sentence. This is why there are no moderates and no compromises amongst the Arabs.
The "perceived " danger of an Atomic Iran on the Israeli side is quite reasonable as they have threatened to wipe Israel off the map on a number of occasions. If Iran does go nuclear it will mean that the Sunni Arab world will soon follow. Whoever believes that it is only Israel that would be threatened by this is living in a fools paradise.
It will definitely not be in the interest of the USA that this is so - nor the interests of Russia or China that have huge restless Moslem populations.

One cannot but wonder at the kind of people who request others to forgo and give up their legitimate inalienable rights in their own homeland legacy and homes.
What kind of people are these and what kind of moral standards do they uphold?
And what kind of world do they envisage and seek?
How many of them would forgo their own homelands and homes for political expediency which amounts in this case to surrendering to conquest hoodlums and usurpers?
Should their request reflect a certain "moral/legal standard...is that the standard they want for the world to be ruled by?
And what kind of world would that BE?
Or is that a "special" request to accommodate a "special" people?
Do they or do they not know that a world built on "political expediency" that condones and forgives aggression and rewards usurpation will be far more vile unjust and savage than the present world?
Palestinian struggle for the LIBERATION of Palestine that will ultimately triumph with the support of all people of good will and good faith all over the world will go down in history as the battle that truly buried both colonialism and imperialism...it will be the precedent that will deter the powers from further aggression and violation of human rights..it is in the last analysis the last and most durable bulwark against rapacious imperialism and savage racism and international hooliganism.
It is now and will be for centuries to come the road map to a just and equitable world that would restrain neocolonialism/ Zionism/Imperialism and all the live and dormant evil powers from underestimating the will of "small" people and quashing them with brutal power as if left unbridled and unchecked they are apt to

diemm you must be totally ignorant of the geography of the land.
The Israelis are "expanding" on the West Bank - this area they would withdraw from in a two-state solution.
In fact diemm why don't you learn about the topic then you wouldn't show your abject ignorance.But I suppose I could say that about most of the bloggers here.

omar ibrahim what do you think of the slaughter of innocent civillians by moslem gangs in Syria and in Iraq and in Egypt and in Pakistan and in Sudan and in about every part of the world where Moslems live? Are the Israelis responsible for them too? Funny your lot doesn't say a word about them.
Your silence is DEAFENING ; your hypocrisy is SICKENING.

The bloody ongoing in Arab countries are more than tragic and what you construe as a DEAFENING SILENCE is a figment of your imagination but mostly of wishful thinking.
ALL that you cite are the source of very grave concern by ALL and are the subject of intense private discussions and debate and of public demonstrations where ever that is possible.
The syndrome however is note worthy that a moderate amount knowledge of recent Arab history ( and of nations in a state of flux) will make it understandable to you if you care to understand though such ongoings are certainly unacceptable to us.
The Arab nation is still in a state of flux and indecision; it is still groping for its way forward an effort hampered by serious differences between substantial internal forces which are battling obsolete regimes and each other while simultaneously combating foreign powers and influences with their ceaseless interference and their resident agents .
We are still at the stage of formulating a dominant public consensus on which way to go and how; an effort that whenever it promises bearing fruit is frustrated by direct and indirect severe foreign intervention and outright aggression as for the plantation of Israel in Palestine and the recent American conquest and destruction of Iraq.
Deep internal conflicting/competing forces plus ceaseless foreign intervention have hitherto frustrated all serous attempts at formulating our road map for the future.
The situation now is not unlike Spain's revolution/counter revolution stage of the 30s or
Russia ‘s in the 1916s/17s which witnessed in both intense national discords and extremely violent birth pangs and severe pains.
Re your direct question:
" Are the Israelis(Zionism/Israel will fit better here than Israelis) responsible for them too? "
The answer is YES though not solely but certainly PRIMARILY both directly and indirectly.

Direct results of the implantation of Israel in Palestine:
a-The DISLOCATION DISPOSSESSION DISFRANCHISEMENT and SUBJUGATION of a whole people from and in his homeland ( an act of unprecedented criminality in modern times) apart from constituting a major human tragedy lead to the creation of a very large mass of wretched and deprived Palestinians who with their Arab brethren formed the vanguard of revolutionary movements and revolutionaries battling:
i- the internal conditions that allowed the success of the Zionist/Jewish colonialist conquest.
ii- The Zionist-Judeo/Christian alliance that empowered the conquering and usurping ALIENS
b-Intensified Palestinian then Arab then Moslem consciousness of their utter defenselessness against and vulnerability to Judeo/Christian unrelenting neocolonialist/imperialist designs and ambitions of regional domination and exploitation .
c-The advent of an ALIEN hostile power (in collusion and alliance with departing colonialist powers) into the region guided by a racist and imperialist doctrine: Zionism which necessarily and rightly prioritized military defense and liberation concerns over other vital concerns.
d- The implantation into the region of a constant resident hostile threat to national security at the service of departing colonials as witnessed by the British/French/Israeli alliance against Egypt in 1956
Indirect Results of the Implantation of Israel in Palestine:
a-Total disenchantment with the so called international community which not only supported he that promised others’ homeland to ALIENS but equally failed to implement its own related resolutions : The Partition of Palestine and The Right of Return .
b-Rejection of the Judeo/Christian West as a possible progress partner
c-Prioritization of national and cultural self preservation and self defense considerations to fight back an unmistakable Judeo/Christian attempt at de Arabizing and de Islamizing the region for better to dominate and exploit it.
d- Deferral to secondary consideration basic issues of human rights social and economic progress and public power sharing.
Your direcr questionquoted above is not unlike the query of how much did the implantation of cancerous cells affect an already weak body groping for a safer and healthier life.

omar ibrahim so much blah, blah. The Arab World is corrupt and immoral.When the West doen't need your oil anymore you will all go back to your camels and no one will give a toss how many women you stone because of Sharia law.
You hate the Zionists not because of the Palestinians but because the Jews show you all up. Look what they have achieved in 50 years. Look at the Arab contries - all those Moslems fleeing for a better life in Europe! What have the Moslem world exported hate, hate and more hate.
Omar Ibrahim watch your oil carefully; time is not on your side.

If this senseless outburst (actuall two) makes you happy that is OK by me.
You certainly do not want to understand( which I expected)and your vacuous replies which studiously avoids any meaningful exchange by replying to concrete points I make only confirms what we have consistently taken you for :looters happy in the loot/colonialists and usurupers

Because the American public understand that Israel is at the fore front in the defence of Western values against the onslaught of Islamic fanaticism and shares the same values of democracy and tolerance towards ALL religions.

Anything Obama does will be considered as betraying Israel by conservatives. Even if he takes a M16 and goes kill children in Gaza by himself, they will still say he's throwing the regime under the bus.

Hm, given that the ultra orthodox parties are basically demanding to be draft dodging welfare queens, what pray tell should that mean for his "support"? What does it mean for evangelicals and conservatives in the US to support them?

Ever since the Obama address at Cairo University Israel and Netanyahu have been on tender hooks fearing a substantial Arab-American rapprochement and on the war path against President Obama.
NOT for anything he said or did ( The Cairo U speech was no more than a rehash of American platitudes though couched in "warmer "words) BUT for what he may say or do.
Their war strategy ranged from the publicly insulting (declaration of further Settlements activities in East Jerusalem during Biden visit) to the concerted long term ceaseless indirect denigration vilification AND direct in the open marshalling of internal American forces (The Congress AIPAC & Associates USA Media) that followed the USA/Obama call for a FREEZE on settlement activities into an anti USA/Obama campaign of unprecedented openness leading to a shamefully hasty USA/Obama climb down.
The truly crucial test of will and of American sovereignty over its ME policies was the Iran-A Bomb issue.
Israel/AIPAC/NETANYAHU forced the USA to live for more than a whole year under the Diocletian sword of Presidential elections black mail .by constantly threatening to launch a war on Iran into which the USA/Obama will be dragged against its will and better judgement; an intensecampaign cleverly frustratedby Obama with a mixtue of sanctions and above and under the table political machinations.Thia may turn out to be the most severe blow ever dealt by the USA to the Zionist lobby and may well mark the first step in the long road of America's resumption of its senior partner status in Middle East affairs.
The Obama Administration have been living since day one under constant Israeli/AIPAC threats and intimidation culminating into outright black mail since day one a state of affairs that gravely infringed on and violated American sovereignty.
That the USA has been compelled to tow UNDER DURESS the Israeli line to the extent it did for as long as it did will certainly remain in the mind of the American ruling establishment ( both Democrat and Republican) for quite some time to come and may well mark a turning point in Israeli/American relations.
That the USA

Explain to me Mr.Omar Ibrahim if AIPAC is so powerful why could it not persuade 76% of Jewish votes to vote AGAINST Obama and for Romney who you perceive to be more pro Israel.
Or maybe this whole AIPAC "controling America" bullshit is just so much crap dreamed up by the Arab Lobby to demonise and delegitimise it.
The truth is there are hundreds of lobby groups in America including the very powerful Saudi Arabian Oil lobby that is filled with ex executive officers of the US government. Believe me this is the 'mother' of lobby groups.

Because while most Jewish Americans do not blindly support Israeli policy a rabid minority represented in AIPAC does. And that in turn leads to Jewish members of congress being pressured and coerced into doing AIPAC bidding in signing statements against the president, Jewish members of media, Dersowitz, Abe Foxman and the ADL; they are all powerful antagonists that Obama would normally count on for support. The power of AIPAC and its assorted members have far more power and influence integrated into American politics, intelligentsia, and wealthy elite than any other ethnic/lobbying group.

Should the figure you cite(76%) be correct it would mean that most American Jews are keenly aware of what the influence of AIPAC will ultimately lead to and that 76% of American Jews vote as Americans and NOT as Israeli/AIPAC agents That is good news if true

The way I see it Mr Netanyahu is the supplicant (or at least should be) if relations are sour it is entirely his fault, after all the US gains nothing from the relationship - Israel is the only beneficiary - and Netanyahu severely overplayed his hand by entreating Obama with a list of demands and expecting quick compliance.

Since so many pro-Israel supporters bankrolled Romney I sincerely hope this means that for the first time in a generation no sitting US president is obligated to show fealty to Israel.

It's funny how a small thing like Obama NOT going to war with Iran, and everyone thinks he stood up to the big bad Israeli lobby. The truth is, we couldn't go to war with Iran now, and neither can Israel. It was just talk to see how much more Israel can get out of the USA in the mean time. Israel is stalling until Iran's allies in the region fall (Hezbollah and the Assad Regime).

Please do not forget that Obama didn't say a word about the Gaza/Israeli war when around 1,500 Palestinians were killed (2/3rds of them were civilians). Not one word to Israel about their clear excessive use of force.

Do not forget that the Obama Administration has pledged more money in military assistance to Israel than any other American administration in history.

Meanwhile, Israel is still building settlements, and has made absolutely no progress on working towards a peace agreement.

Now, I don't want you to misunderstand my position. I am not some nut that wants Israel to vanish. Everyone deserves a homeland to call their own, and the Jewish people are no different. Aside from that, I've always maintained my position that the Arabs share equal blame for what's happening.

I just can't stand when everyone says that Obama rose above the Israeli influence, he didn't, and he will still be held by the Israeli lobby shackles in the coming term....but only time will tell for sure.

I think the only request of Netanyahu towards Obama was to make clear the 'red line' concerning producing the atomic bomb. I can't understand the shock this has caused so many bloggers here.Experts say that if Sadam Hussein had been given a 'red line' under Bush (senior)he would not have attacked Kuwait. 'Red lines' can prevent misunderstandings.
The world powers need to take out the Iranian reactors; Russia even shares a border with Iran.The Iranians have sent and sponsored Islamic terrorists throughout the world. If one of these terror groups gets its hand on a small nuclear device it could be exploded anywhere in the world not just in Tel Aviv.In fact it will be easier to smuggle one to the UK or the USA than to Israel -so let us stop kidding ourselves its just an Israeli problem!

Obama does NOT seem to have the mettle and reolve needed to engage Israel/Zionism and their allies and agents in the USA into open war to liberate the USA from their influence.
However to be fair to the man the inevitable coming battle can only be engaged with American over whelming public support and can only be won with consistent clear headed objective exposure and curtailment of undue disproportionate influences that harm the USA while making certain in the process of NOT turning it into an anti Jew war.

Following is an excerpt from an address delivered by Egyptian cleric Sheik Abdallah Badr at a rally at Tahrir Square, which was posted on the Internet on November 9, 2012.

Abdallah Badr: All of you can see what is happening today to America. Our wanton TV channels and corrupt newspapers portray what is happening in America as if it were a natural phenomenon. But I say loud and clear that the wind inflicted upon America, [Hurricane] Sandy, is one of the soldiers of Allah.

You should go to that website and listen to him speak in his native language. Hearing his passion will help you understand precisely how very much the US has to gain from her support for Israel and how much she has to lose if Islam wins the battle for Palestine.

Your gloating over Obama's win is predictable, but its negative impact on Israel remain wishful thinking. The relationship between the two nations transcends the individuals. Most of American Jews voted for Obama, and many of Obama's key campaign strategists were Jewish, as are many of the staffers. Joe Biden no doubt is keeping his sights on 2016. It is true that in the beginning Obama tried flirting with the Arab world, but that didn't get him anywhere, as were his efforts to get the Israeli-Palestinian track going. With Iranian issue looming strongly, Syria in utter chaos, and Muslim Brothers ruling in Egypt, the 2 leaders may even increase the level of communication, if anything. As both leaders have said numerous times, the fundamentals of strategic cooperation between Israel and US are stronger and deeper than ever.

Additionally, it is not unreasonable to think that Obama's feeling and views on the Arab-Israeli conflict have undergone some transformation after witnessing the wholesale murder of civilians in Syria and the inhumanity and cruelty taking place across much of the Arab world. He certainly did not hesitate taking out OBL, or employing aerial assassinations on the scale that would give the IDF envy. When Netanyahu called with congratulations, this was entirely correct, and what was expected for the leader who appreciated much what was done for his nation's security.